4.6 Review

X-Ray Repair Cross-Complementing Group 1 (XRCC1) Genetic Polymorphisms and Gastric Cancer Risk: A HuGE Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 173, 期 4, 页码 363-375

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq378

关键词

association; epidemiology; genetics; genome; human; polymorphism; single nucleotide; stomach neoplasms; X-ray repair cross complementing protein 1; XRCC1

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30830038, 30970842, 81071180]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [10JC1410000, 08JC1415000, 08410702000]
  3. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [S30203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of associations of the x-ray repair cross-complementing 1 gene (XRCC1) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) Arg194Trp, Arg280His, and Arg399Gln with gastric cancer risk, based on eligible studies retrieved from electronic databases for the period January 2000-December 2009. Ultimately, 12, 6, and 3 studies were found to be eligible for meta-analyses of Arg399Gln, Arg194Trp, and Arg280His, respectively. Regrouping was adopted in accordance with the most probably appropriate genetic models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were sought out. For overall gastric cancer, the pooled odds ratios for Arg399Gln, Arg194Trp, and Arg280His were 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90, 1.20; P = 0.572), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.68, 1.01; P = 0.059), and 1.18 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.50; P = 0.194), respectively. After stratification of the Arg399Gln SNP data by anatomic type (cardia vs. noncardia), the pooled odds ratio was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.37; P = 0.568). The authors conclude that the 3 SNPs evaluated are not associated with risk of gastric cancer. The Arg399Gln SNP is not associated with the cardia type of gastric cancer. Evidently, the heterogeneity regarding the Arg399Gln SNP across studies is not explained by ethnicity, genotyping technique, sample size, or date of publication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据